Word of advice, RSL: take a step back. Dale likes to be provocative in his comments -- exhausting, isn't it? There are no winners and losers in photography... or life. Just cynics and generous-hearted people. That's the only distinction that matters to me -- and the only one that actually means anything in the end.

How does one determine who's winning and who's losing in this photography contest? You say you're a winner? Why is that? What have you done to win? Since we're talking about photography I'd have to assume there are pictures somewhere that make you a winner. Where can I see them? Since Minnesota Fats is a "dead dude" is he a loser? Since you seem to be a "fanboy" of Fats, who's a "dead dude," doesn't that make you a loser?

Well, you're amazing me for one thing.How does one determine who's winning and who's losing in this photography contest? You say you're a winner? Why is that? What have you done to win? Since we're talking about photography I'd have to assume there are pictures somewhere that make you a winner. Where can I see them? Since Minnesota Fats is a "dead dude" is he a loser? Since you seem to be a "fanboy" of Fats, who's a "dead dude," doesn't that make you a loser?

No, I'm a winner because I'm not a fan of Fats, I merely report what I learned from him, which doesn't seem to interest you. If you spent more of your time and words describing what you've learned from your heroes, and posted your result photos here, we could have a guess at your winning potential.

No, I'm a winner because I'm not a fan of Fats, I merely report what I learned from him, which doesn't seem to interest you. If you spent more of your time and words describing what you've learned from your heroes, and posted your result photos here, we could have a guess at your winning potential.

But you haven't answered my questions: I asked what basis you use to judge a winner and a loser? You said you were a winner and "dead dudes" and their "fanboys" are losers, but when I asked if Minnesota Fats is a loser since he's a "dead dude" you didn't answer the question but said you learned something from him. What did you learn, and doesn't that make you a "fanboy," and therefore a loser under your earlier criterion? You seem confused.

Dale, I'm sure you've examined my web at length. Where are your photographs? Are yours the shots of sitting birds and flowers you've posted occasionally on User Critiques?But you haven't answered my questions: I asked what basis you use to judge a winner and a loser? You said you were a winner and "dead dudes" and their "fanboys" are losers, but when I asked if Minnesota Fats is a loser since he's a "dead dude" you didn't answer the question but said you learned something from him. What did you learn, and doesn't that make you a "fanboy," and therefore a loser under your earlier criterion? You seem confused.

I don't know if anything less than a message from god would satisfy you, but since I'm in a good mood, being a winner and all, here's a few crumbs to whet your appetite:

Fats represented two principles, which may overlap some:

One, he was willing to appear on national TV, or other public venues, as a pool player of limited skill, and also appear as a sore loser and braggart for saying that (to name one example) he could beat Willie Mosconi any time in an unlimited straight pool match. This, after losing rather badly to Mosconi on television. Now I know for a fact that virtually everyone who watched these matches agreed that Fats was lousy, or at best no match for Mosconi. Most erstwhile intelligent adults could not comprehend that a man would be so devoid of ego that he'd be willing to sacrifice his reputation and honor just to make a buck. And make a buck he did. The story of how he cleaned out the world billiards champ in Atlantic City is the stuff of legend, as well as Fats' incredible skill in making tough shots. This was illustrated in The Color Of Money, although I don't think it was connected to Fats, or even that they mentioned his name in that film.

The second principle is the chess -vs- checkers example. Chess is played to win. Checkers is played (by the experts) for a draw. Always for a draw. You wait for your opponent to make a mistake, even if it takes 50 or 100 games, and then you nail him. That's the way it works. Patience is the companion of wisdom.

I don't know if anything less than a message from god would satisfy you, but since I'm in a good mood, being a winner and all, here's a few crumbs to whet your appetite:

Fats represented two principles, which may overlap some:

One, he was willing to appear on national TV, or other public venues, as a pool player of limited skill, and also appear as a sore loser and braggart for saying that (to name one example) he could beat Willie Mosconi any time in an unlimited straight pool match. This, after losing rather badly to Mosconi on television. Now I know for a fact that virtually everyone who watched these matches agreed that Fats was lousy, or at best no match for Mosconi. Most erstwhile intelligent adults could not comprehend that a man would be so devoid of ego that he'd be willing to sacrifice his reputation and honor just to make a buck. And make a buck he did. The story of how he cleaned out the world billiards champ in Atlantic City is the stuff of legend, as well as Fats' incredible skill in making tough shots. This was illustrated in The Color Of Money, although I don't think it was connected to Fats, or even that they mentioned his name in that film.

The second principle is the chess -vs- checkers example. Chess is played to win. Checkers is played (by the experts) for a draw. Always for a draw. You wait for your opponent to make a mistake, even if it takes 50 or 100 games, and then you nail him. That's the way it works. Patience is the companion of wisdom.

Dale, You've finally convinced me. You're right; you wouldn't be able to learn anything from those "dead dudes."

Afraid I"ll have to admit I haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying to say, Dale, but I gather the statement was intended to be "provocative." It did provoke laughter, if that's any consolation.

I have heard the laughter of the ignorant many times. Usually it's teenage wannabe vals at the mall, laughing at something they don't understand that seems slightly threatening to them. You have my sympathy.

Do you two kids mind? You've turned my topic post into your own private little pissing match. Dalethorn, it's quite clear that you have a preternatural ability to morph otherwise good conversations into banal little tiffs over nothing important. I checked your other posts to see if you just had something against me personally, which would explain why you ruined my post from last year and managed to do it again, but it appears you're an equal opportunity topic buster since you are currently involved in at least three on-going little tiffs with three other members. Is your ego that fragile? You've got more opinions and advice than Ann Landers, from the causes of the Civil War to the subtleties of modern acoustics, and this from the person who wrote, "But I strongly resist dogma." Hilarious. I've never seen someone with more dogmatic assertions. I mean, you've got almost 1200 posts on LL. Clearly you've got way too much time on your hands.

Do us all a favor and refrain from using this forum as your on-line primal scream therapy. And RTS, you didn't heed my warning, and now look what he managed to drag you into? Please allow this to be what it was intended to be: a forum about photography.

Dalethorn, it's quite clear that..... I checked your other posts to see if..... which would explain why you ruined.....Is your ego that fragile?.....from the causes of the Civil War to the subtleties of modern acoustics

I don't remember initiating a conversation on the Civil War.I do remember in some cases clearing up misstatements about that topic among others.I made it clear in the post regarding Minnesota Fats that ego is not an issue.

I see from the tone of this that either you abhor rational discussion, or, you need one person to blame for extraneous posts in your area, or, you just don't like my personality. That last part is OK with me. If you want to point to who started veering off topic, and where I posted something out of line, I'd be glad to take a minute out of my busy day to explain in a friendly and rational way exactly what I intended and why. I don't waste my time on idle chit-chat. We shouldn't make broad accusations here - it's a mob mentality to do so.

Ahem... Take a deep breath and some moderation - puhleeze.Try to avoid personal attacks or risk the Fickle Finger of Moderation.

Chris, I don't mean to make any personal attacks, but if you'd kindly check out the various posts of Dalethorn on both this and other topics, I think you'll see that he's quite the provocateur who ends up derailing many a good discussion because of his need to belittle and make personal attacks on others. I was trying to exercise restraint with him, but after once again derailing an otherwise good discussion thread, I'd had it. Nothing appears to get through to him. I simply invite you to check out his history with posts. He calls people ignorant, belittles their opinions, makes personal attacks, derails civil conversations. To that end, I'm a bit surprised to get a warning while he goes go on and on casting aspersion on other people. To wit, here are a few recent samples of his vitriol:

"Truly profound ignorance on a global scale.""This is mind-boggling. A total disregard for reason and logic. Strip-mining mentality on a rampage.""Here's a *very* simple thought you *might* be able to grasp.""It's a shame to rant like that just to expound a common academic (yawn) point of view.""I have heard the laughter of the ignorant many times."

And that's just in the last week! Every reference to ignorance in the above examples, btw, are directed at the people he's responding to. He apparently doesn't have the requisite self-control to keep his venom in check, and I was just responding to him in kind ~ which was my mistake. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the discussions here... it's just Dalethorn makes it more tedious.

Chris, I don't mean to make any personal attacks, but if you'd kindly check out the various posts of Dalethorn on both this and other topics, I think you'll see that he's quite the provocateur who ends up derailing many a good discussion because of his need to belittle and make personal attacks on others. I was trying to exercise restraint with him, but after once again derailing an otherwise good discussion thread, I'd had it. Nothing appears to get through to him. I simply invite you to check out his history with posts. He calls people ignorant, belittles their opinions, makes personal attacks, derails civil conversations. To that end, I'm a bit surprised to get a warning while he goes go on and on casting aspersion on other people. To wit, here are a few recent samples of his vitriol:"Truly profound ignorance on a global scale.""This is mind-boggling. A total disregard for reason and logic. Strip-mining mentality on a rampage.""Here's a *very* simple thought you *might* be able to grasp.""It's a shame to rant like that just to expound a common academic (yawn) point of view.""I have heard the laughter of the ignorant many times."And that's just in the last week! Every reference to ignorance in the above examples, btw, are directed at the people he's responding to. He apparently doesn't have the requisite self-control to keep his venom in check, and I was just responding to him in kind ~ which was my mistake. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the discussions here... it's just Dalethorn makes it more tedious.

If this isn't a personal attack, then apparently there's no such thing. I've never directed any venom toward LightCapture, but he sure has it in for me.

When I expressed a negative comment toward the LaRouchie poster, Mr. Malthusian, I think most reasonable people would know where that's coming from.

On the Civil War thing LightCapture is so incensed about, when a person extolls the virtue of their personal favorite tyrant, i.e. Lincoln, they should get a second opinion. Mr. LightCapture would like to restrain that second opinion.

But I doubt Mr. LightCapture is expressing honest grief. This sort of grandiose attack doesn't just happen, it's planned, and his list bears that out.

Chris, I don't mean to make any personal attacks, but if you'd kindly check out the various posts of Dalethorn on both this and other topics, I think you'll see that he's quite the provocateur who ends up derailing many a good discussion because of his need to belittle and make personal attacks on others. I was trying to exercise restraint with him, but after once again derailing an otherwise good discussion thread, I'd had it. Nothing appears to get through to him. I simply invite you to check out his history with posts. He calls people ignorant, belittles their opinions, makes personal attacks, derails civil conversations. To that end, I'm a bit surprised to get a warning while he goes go on and on casting aspersion on other people. To wit, here are a few recent samples of his vitriol:

"Truly profound ignorance on a global scale.""This is mind-boggling. A total disregard for reason and logic. Strip-mining mentality on a rampage.""Here's a *very* simple thought you *might* be able to grasp.""It's a shame to rant like that just to expound a common academic (yawn) point of view.""I have heard the laughter of the ignorant many times."

And that's just in the last week! Every reference to ignorance in the above examples, btw, are directed at the people he's responding to. He apparently doesn't have the requisite self-control to keep his venom in check, and I was just responding to him in kind ~ which was my mistake. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the discussions here... it's just Dalethorn makes it more tedious.

Light, You're wasting your time. Every forum has at least one regular who will pontificate insultingly on any subject, especially subjects he knows nothing about. All you can do with someone like that is toss his logic back at him and get him to demonstrate his ignorance to everyone in sight so people stop paying attention to him. The responses you get from this kind of guy almost always are funnier than what you'd get from a stand-up comic. I'm sorry the thread took a turn for the worse and got away from your original statement. But look at it this way: some of these diversions add a spot of levity to the forum.

Regarding your original statement: Since the early fifties I've owned and worked with every imaginable kind of camera from view cameras to Rolleis, to Canons, to Leicas, to digital point-and-shoots, through several Nikon pro digitals to what I use now, a D3. I also sometimes work the street with an Epson R-D1. I think that everything depends on the photographer and his willingness to learn and his ability to look. Equipment doesn't change a thing. Either you look or you don't. Photographing, itself, is still nothing and looking is still everything. If your focus has turned away from photographs to equipment it's not because of the equipment. I do agree that we've created a world full of people with point-and-shoots, cell phones, etc., who haven't a clue what they're doing. On the other hand that sometimes helps. When I shoot on the street and awful lot of people don't realize I've made an exposure since they didn't see a flash.

Glad to hear that you got the personality-capturing shots of your dogs before they passed on. I have some of a long gone Dobe and a black lab that I treasure in the same way.

Light, You're wasting your time. Every forum has at least one regular who will pontificate insultingly on any subject, especially subjects he knows nothing about. All you can do with someone like that is toss his logic back at him and get him to demonstrate his ignorance to everyone in sight so people stop paying attention to him. The responses you get from this kind of guy almost always are funnier than what you'd get from a stand-up comic. I'm sorry the thread took a turn for the worse and got away from your original statement. But look at it this way: some of these diversions add a spot of levity to the forum.Regarding your original statement: Since the early fifties I've owned and worked with every imaginable kind of camera from view cameras to Rolleis, to Canons, to Leicas, to digital point-and-shoots, through several Nikon pro digitals to what I use now, a D3. I also sometimes work the street with an Epson R-D1. I think that everything depends on the photographer and his willingness to learn and his ability to look. Equipment doesn't change a thing. Either you look or you don't. Photographing, itself, is still nothing and looking is still everything. If your focus has turned away from photographs to equipment it's not because of the equipment. I do agree that we've created a world full of people with point-and-shoots, cell phones, etc., who haven't a clue what they're doing. On the other hand that sometimes helps. When I shoot on the street and awful lot of people don't realize I've made an exposure since they didn't see a flash.Glad to hear that you got the personality-capturing shots of your dogs before they passed on. I have some of a long gone Dobe and a black lab that I treasure in the same way.

Blind leading the blind. In case (!) y'all missed it, this person was the one who turned the thread into a personal issue. Go back and read.